Is it correct to say that chemical elements are really.. organized forms of energy.

Not in any sense helpful to understanding chemistry, in my opinion.

I suppose a contorted argument can be made that since mass and energy have equivalence and since particles with mass follow certain patterns of interaction that give rise to chemistry, one could make out that it is all about energy following patterns of interaction. But I don't think it gets you anywhere to say so.

By the way, I prefer "ordered" to "organized", since to me "organized" implies an organizer and in science we don't rely on there being an organizer for the order we observe in nature.

Chemical elements are ordered arrangements of subatomic particles that give rise to matter with unique properties.

Subatomic particles which can be converted to pure energy. In theory at least.

Mathematically speaking, yes. But physicists will not hand you this one. Dunno why, don't care, they are wrong. We are just energy, not organised, not disorganized. I would compare it with bible fanatics and evolution. They don't give into being compared to monkeys, physicists don't want to be compared to energy. Matter and energy is something different to them.

To me, energy has a property we were not able to detect before. Namely the ability to form mass and thus matter under some conditions. We know mass can create energy, then why not the other way around?

To exchemist, i disagree with your "ordered" statement. Just because it is matter, doesn't mean it is more organised than energy. Possibly, yes, but before we know the order of which energy is contained, we cannot say. We don't even have a unit for "order" under energy. We don't know about all the energy, we don't know if it is concentrated on some places, or what effect it has. Before this, we cannot tell if it is more or less ordered than matter. We only know that when matter decays into energy, it becomes more chaotic, so we assume that energy is the more chaotic state.

Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..

Mathematically speaking, yes. But physicists will not hand you this one.

Neither will geologists. We give things name that inform within context. I am variously know by my first name, my last name (with or without a prefacing sir), the manager, or that bastard. Each of these is appropriate in one context, but not necessarily another.

Where the distinction between energy and matter is clear cut, as it is in some contexts, it is unhelpful to insist upon applying the same name to each.

In the context of elements, the electrons are arranged a certain way according to the laws of physics, and the number of them, combined with how they are arranged, determine the properties of that element. I'm not allowed to say that they're ordered a certain way? And hey, I'd love for us to be able to turn energy into matter :P that would be sweet, but have we ever observed the phenomenon of energy turning into matter?

Chemical elements are ordered arrangements of subatomic particles that give rise to matter with unique properties.

Subatomic particles which can be converted to pure energy. In theory at least.

Mathematically speaking, yes. But physicists will not hand you this one. Dunno why, don't care, they are wrong. We are just energy, not organised, not disorganized. I would compare it with bible fanatics and evolution. They don't give into being compared to monkeys, physicists don't want to be compared to energy. Matter and energy is something different to them.

To me, energy has a property we were not able to detect before. Namely the ability to form mass and thus matter under some conditions. We know mass can create energy, then why not the other way around?

To exchemist, i disagree with your "ordered" statement. Just because it is matter, doesn't mean it is more organised than energy. Possibly, yes, but before we know the order of which energy is contained, we cannot say. We don't even have a unit for "order" under energy. We don't know about all the energy, we don't know if it is concentrated on some places, or what effect it has. Before this, we cannot tell if it is more or less ordered than matter. We only know that when matter decays into energy, it becomes more chaotic, so we assume that energy is the more chaotic state.

I simply meant that the electrons in atoms interact with the atomic nucleus, and with each other, according to certain patterns of behaviour, which give rise to the individual chemical properties of the elements and their compounds. The pattern of interactions can be described as a form of order. (To me, the whole of science consists in observing and characterising the order we perceive in the physical world.)

I did not intend to comment on what states of energy or matter may be more ordered than others. I'll let the thermodynamicists deal with that one.